Embedded Files
Role
Role
The main role of the Assistant Editors is to handle the peer review process. They make recommendations to the Associate Editors based on the peer reviews. Learn more about the role of an Assistant Editor on the page entitled Roles, and more about our team on the page entitled Who is ICB.
Tasks
Tasks
Tasks 1 to 3 described below are completed using ScholarOne, an online platform for managing manuscripts.
Task 1 Pre-assess new submissions
Task 1 Pre-assess new submissions
make a recommendation:
typically takes 15 to 30 minutes per manuscript
complete within 2 to 3 days
options: peer review | reject with invitation to resubmit | reject outright
symposium and invited manuscripts are sent out for peer review unless there the editor finds flaws that prevent the manuscript from being peer reviewed (such as figures mangled during the conversion to pdf format)
contributed manuscripts require more scrutiny because they have not gone through the pre-submission vetting process of invited and symposium manuscripts
Each new submission is assigned to an Assistant and an Associate Editor by the Managing Editor, according previously agreed portfolios.
The Assistant Editor pre-assesses each new submission to judge whether it is ready for full peer review. This preassessment typically takes 15 to 30 minutes. Although rejection without peer review is rare (fewer than 1% of symposium submissions), manuscripts may be rejected at this stage on grounds of poor quality. New Assistant Editors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the quality standards and scope of ICB, and the type of papers ICB publishes.
If you recommend reject without peer review, you must provide a rationale to the associate editor. If you recommend ‘reject with invitation to resubmit’, please provide guidance about how the manuscript must be improved.
Task 2 Identify peer reviewers
Task 2 Identify peer reviewers
typically takes 30 to 60 minutes per manuscript
complete within 2 to 3 days, preferably immediately after pre-assessment
identify four to six suitable reviewers for the manuscript
You will need to identify four to six suitable peer reviewers, and list them in order of preference. You will also decide whether you require 2 or 3 peer reviews. Reviewers should have expertise within the main (sub)disciplines relevant to the manuscript. We recommend that you invite 3 reviews for cross-disciplinary manuscripts, and that you rank reviewers in a way that increases the chance of the manuscript being reviewed by experts from a mix of relevant (sub)disciplines as the Managing Editor works through the ranked list of reviewers. As you select reviewers, please check whether the manuscript has been assigned to one of our editorial reviewers and select reviewers that complement the expertise of the editorial reviewer.
Consistent with SICB’s commitment to diversity, please ensure reviewer diversity in gender, geography (of their affiliation), academic age and status.
To avoid conflicts of interest, do not recommend recent collaborators, mentees, or PhD mentors of the authors. Follow NSF or NIH guidelines for conflict of interest. When in doubt, consult with the Editor or Associate Editor assigned to the manuscript. Reviewers should not be Assistant Editors, Associate Editors, or Editors at ICB.
Symposium organizers are invited to write an Introduction to the Symposium. Some Introductions merely explain the symposium topic and summarize the symposium papers; these are reviewed only by the editors. Introductions that are fully developed review or perspective papers will be sent out for full peer review.
Task 3 Make a recommendation based on peer reviews
Task 3 Make a recommendation based on peer reviews
typically takes 30 to 60 minutes per manuscript
complete within 2 to 3 days
read and rate all peer reviews
make a recommendation. Options: ‘Accept as is’, ‘Minor revision’, ‘Major revision’, ‘Reject’ or ‘Reject and allow resubmission’
synthesize and prioritize peer reviewers' comments to the authors (see instructions below)
You are able to view peer reviews as soon as the peer reviewer submits them. The Managing Editor will alert you when all reviews have been returned.
Recommendation. You will re-assess the manuscript, taking into account the reviewer comments, and provide a recommendation of ‘Accept as is’, ‘Minor revision’, ‘Major revision’, ‘Reject’ or ‘Reject and allow/encourage resubmission’.
You will write a recommendation (typically not exceeding 500 words in length) with a clear explanation of why you made your particular recommendation so that the associate editor and the authors are aware of the exact reasoning behind your recommendation. These comments should be honest and constructive.
Synthesis of peer reviews. If the peer reviews are unprofessional, contradictory, or contain concerns that must be addressed for the manuscript to be publishable, please address those issues explicitly in your comments to the Associate Editor. For more detailed advice, please refer to the page on Peer review challenges.
SICB policy states that all symposia must be published within the year of the symposium. Due to this tight timeline, we aim to prevent the need for multiple rounds of revision. Hence it is important that you provide authors with clear guidelines on how to revise their manuscript in order to make it suitable for publication. Clearly indicate which recommended revisions are mandatory (the manuscript will be rejected if the authors do not comply with the recommendation) and which are optional (the authors may opt not to follow this recommendation). All recommendations made by the Assistant Editor will be reviewed by the Associate Editor, who will make the decision on the manuscript.
If you are not confident in providing an assessment based on the existing review reports, reach out to your peer mentors within our editorial board for advice promptly so you can complete your assessment within the recommended 3 day time window.
Page updated
Report abuse